This is a guest post by Polly
Last week I received an envelope in the post which informed me on the outside that it contained ‘important papers’. Ooh, I thought what could it be – “at risk” letter? (I expect to receive one daily). Anyway I opened it and it turned out it was a letter from ‘Yes to fairer votes’.
Their leaflet informs me:
“Dear Polly
In a few weeks time you can make politicians work harder for your vote.
After the expenses scandal we can’t let MP’s return to business as usual. Voting Yes will change the way they get their jobs – forever.
The Alternative vote is simple. Just rank the candidates 1,2,3… and you can show your support for anyone who you think is up to the job.
A YES vote means
All MPs will need to aim for 50% support in their constituency. No more winning power with just 1 vote in 3; they will all have to do more to win – and keep – our support.
Ranking candidates means if your favourite doesn’t win, you can still have a say. The only people shut out are extremists like the BNP”
This is misleading on so many levels, I am currently trying to work who I can complain to about it. Advertising Standards Authority? The police? Can anyone enlighten me here?
Well lets start out with – the alternative vote isn’t simple and it isn’t just about ranking the candidates 1,2,3.
From the Telegraph: ‘What would be the impact of the Alternative Vote?‘
And it doesn’t shut out extremists like the BNP at all. Their supporters would still have an influence on the final result. But there’s no actual reason the BNP couldn’t win under this system (or indeed first past the post).
But it gets better – the real reason I should support AV apparently is because Colin Firth, Joanna Lumley, Eddie Izzard, Honor Blackman, Tony Robinson, and Stephen Fry are supporting it! Oh that’s really made my mind up. When I’m stuck for how to make a decision on the future of our electoral system, I think ‘what would Colin Firth do?’. I mean I actually OWN the DVD’s of ‘Mamma Mia’ and ‘Bridget Jones, The Edge of Reason’!
It turns out however, that the leaflet I have received is slightly different to the leaflet that ‘Yes to fairer votes’ have been sending out in London. Which instead of Tony Robinson had poet Benjamin Zephaniah saying he was saying ‘yes to AV’
Now much as I respect Zephaniah for turning down an OBE I still don’t think he’s going to make up my mind. But even if that had been the case, ‘Yes to fairer votes‘ presumably thinks I’m the kind of racist who would prefer the opinion of someone who’s on erm, Time Team, to somebody who’s actually a noted poet, but um – a bit brown. Isn’t that the kind of thing the BNP would do?
Ah the BNP – another tack the ‘yes’ campaign are taking is that the BNP are against AV, so I should vote for…
Let’s put it this way: Operation Black Vote, the Muslim Council of Britain and a host of similar groups are backing the yes campaign. The BNP is backing the no campaign. People can draw their own conclusions.
Yes and the conclusion I MIGHT draw is that the BNP are opposing the alternative vote because they want proportional representation instead, because that gives them an even better chance of getting elected. And I would as it happens be right – http:// http://www.bnp.org.uk /news /general-election-2010-analysis-bnp-leader-nick-griffin [note from Cath – I’m not linking directly to the BNP site from here, so copy and paste this link into your Internet browser and get rid of the spaces if you want read Nick Griffin’s analysis of the 2010 election]
And ‘yes to fairer votes‘ STILL hasn’t explained how the MPs elected by AV are going to be mysteriously any less likely to fiddle their expenses than those elected by first past the post.
So the conclusion I am drawing is that ‘yes to fairer votes‘ are a patronising bunch who think I am a simple minded racist who’s obsessed with actors. Either that or they’ve got a really crap marketing department.
I still haven’t heard directly from ‘No to AV‘, though Baroness Warsi, in the no camp, claimed that AV would give power to fascists. Which isn’t really strictly true either.
Oh noes, I’m still confused, who can I turn to for the truth?
Channel 4 to the rescue – ‘Exclusive Poll: What difference would AV make?‘
Well AV would make a slight difference then. But we would probably have still ended up with a condem government.
Actually I’m voting no (though maybe I should be allowed to vote yes as second choice? Or don’t know?). I’m voting no for two reasons. The first is that I struggle to find one party I want to vote for most of the time, let alone three. And AV seems a crap system that will have a marginal difference. That just might include letting in more extremists, and can still produce anomalous results.
But the second is that a no vote is the only way we are going to get rid of Nick Clegg – ‘Nick Clegg orders rebrand amid rumours of leadership challenge‘
And I’ll vote for that any day.
Too Much To Say For Myself 
Cheers Cath, I was a bit dubious about that BNP link, but best to get it straight from the horses mouth. So to speak.
I’ve got to admit I’m still completely undecided about the AV thing. In fact I’ve never felt quite so apathetic about voting on something as I do on this issue.
But I will vote. I just need to read up on it a bit and make a decision as to which way now….
Well you’re supposed to be getting a big leaflet through the door soon explaining it all. I am quite serious about wanting to complain about the yes to fairer votes leaflet by the way, I just can’t work out how you do it – suppose I will have to phone the council, I think you have to complain to the returning officer. It is VERY misleading. And also had an application for a postal vote attached. Is that legal? It certainly gave the erroneous impression that it was some kind of official communication.
Oh it seems I’m not alone.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1373781/AV-backers-accused-misleading-voters-celebrity-mailshot.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Oh and a quick straw poll round my office reveals nobody knows how to vote. The chief motivation so far seems to be deciding whether you want to piss off Clegg or Cameron more.
Having lived in N Ireland, and being born so to speak into proportional representation, I’ve no problem with the av vote. You DON’T HAVE to give a 12345 in order of preference, in fact you can just give a 1.
Lot’s of people did this with David Miliband in the recent Labour leadership election. There simply was no other choice as far as they were concerned. And I did a lot of questioning at the conference last Sept.
I’m voting YES.
Happy to report that I used my AV vote as follows:
1. Diane Abbott
2. Ed Miliband
That’s the beauty of a form of proportional representation.
My reservation Maggie is that a ‘second’ vote counts as much as a ‘first’ one (unless I’ve completely misunderstood, yes to fairer votes being no help whatsoever). So I actually think it’s slightly more likely that extremist parties could be elected under this system (though Andrew Rawnsley disagrees with me http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/03/andrew-rawnsley-electoral-reform).
That’s the thing, I like to think I’ve got a reasonable head for maths, but once you start trying to get your head round it, it becomes steadily more mind boggling. The channel 4 figures show no change in the number of ‘others’ but would people’s voting behaviour change if they had AV?
And surely the whole point about the Labour party leadership election was tht the ‘wrong’ Milliband won? The figures (link up next to avoid the spamulator) show David in the lead until the last round. When Ed won by a whisker. Is this any fairer?
http://www.labour.org.uk/votes-by-round
but would people’s voting behaviour change if they had AV?
Probably not. It is still effectively a two-party system in Australia, even with a gazillion numbers in preferential voting. The guidance from the major parties is always to put the opposing party at the end of the list.
Polly, David Miliband, had he won, would have done so by a whisker too. The right person won 😉
Well we could debate that one all night – only history will tell – maggie. I was really just pointing out that AV can have weird effects as the labour party vote shows.
By the way I phoned my local council and they informed me their legal team is already investigating the ‘yes to fairer votes’ leaflet. But I’m still going to complain. I have also e-mailed the electoral commission.
The guidance from the major parties is always to put the opposing party at the end of the list.
So essentially this is saying that AV will force us into tactical voting. Which we can already do in FPTP of course, but now we’re more or less being forced into it. You see that’s it. If I just have one choice and say I chose party A, what if I still would rather have party B than party C under any circumstances? I’m kind of pushed into 2nd voting for party B then aren’t I? It reminds me of when the french had to vote for Chirac to keep out Le Pen. Do we want that?
Great post, Polly. Both the pros and antis of the AV referendum teach us that, quite frankly, the UK hasn’t a clue about politics. The total and transparent amateurism of professional London campaigning, however, should not mean that those of us fortunate enough not to have been condemned to live in the metropolis shouldn’t take the issue seriously.
Relatively speaking, the AV system IS simple, and if you don’t think so, buy a book on voting systems and then come back.
It also has the great beauty of NOT being proportional representation, which results in the end of constituencies, and winds up with a tiny group of dudes in that Lonthing-on-Whatsit apology for a capital writing party lists of ‘suitable’ MPs in their own order of suitability.
I still await a good reason why any elector should not avail themself of an opportunity to transfer their vote should they so wish, given that the transfer would only occur once it’s clear their first choice isn’t getting anywhere. And so, despite everything the pro-AV campaign does to stop me by looking like a group of unadulterated t***s, I shall definitely be voting for AV.
Well as I said in the last comment Stephen, my main objection is that it more or less forces you into voting tactically. But thanks for the compliment…
Well not me personally, because I live in a safe seat, so I could probably vote SWP, BNP and monster raving loony and not make any difference. But if you were say in a marginal seat, you might end up with a painful choice like having to vote Lib Dem second to keep the Tories out, which would be ABSOLUTELY AGONISING – well at least for me. And just not having a second choice wouldn’t really be an option then would it?
I really feel like voting for neither side to be honest, they’ve both run crap and dishonest campaigns. As I said for most people I’ve spoken to it seems to come down to who you hate most, Cameron or Clegg. I hate both, but I think getting rid of Nicky boy is the only way to get rid of Dave.
Polly, I don’t see how it forces you to vote at all, let alone tactically. Those who wish are perfectly at liberty to simply put a ‘1’ against their first choice and then place their paper in the box, forgoing further choices if they so wish.
Here in Wales, we have serious four party politics. 58.5% of voters did not vote for our MP here in Clwyd West. And that’s actual voters, electors. But we wound up with a Conservative member of the Tory party because the New Labour wing of the Tory Party could only manage 24.7%, with both the LibDems and Plaid Cymru getting 15% each.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/w19.stm
Can you really defend the status quo with nonsense like that?
Polly – I think your argument here is terrible.
1. Benjamin Zephaniah is not as well known outside of London as Tony Robinson. I don’t know why he wasn’t put on the literature, but I’ m not going to speculate that it was a racist reason without any further investigation when there could be other quite plausible explanations.
2. Unfortunately, celebrity endorsement is an effective marketing strategy. I’d prefer a society in which this wasn’t the case, but unfortunately we don’t have it.
3. The alternative vote IS about ranking candidates 1, 2, 3, and it is that simple.
4. Your complaint about the celebrity endorsement is slightly undermined by your conclusion. You complain that the Yes campaign is patronising because it assumes that your opinion will be swayed by actors. And then you go on to say that one of your main reasons to vote no isn’t an evaluation based on the facts, but a decision to stick it to Nick Clegg… So are you motivated by the personalities associated with the campaign or not?
5. This isn’t a discussion about AV. This is about your outrage at the Yes campaign strategy.
And you’re patronising and London centric Sarah. I’ve heard of Benjamin Zephaniah, he is a NATIONALLY know poet – why do you think he was nominated for an OBE? Whereas Tony Robinson is a bloke on Time Team No need to assume we’re all uncultured members of the great unwashed north of Watford you know.
Celebrity endorsement is NOT an effective marketing strategy, (see the Andrew Rawnsley link I posted for example, he is pro AV and yet again is critical of it). And yet again it is patronising and treats voters like idiots. If you want me to vote for AV tell me the REAL advantages. If all you can come up with is ‘colin firth likes it’, that’s NOT an argument. And it shows the contempt with which the Yes campaign regards the electorate.
The alternative vote is NOT just about ranking candidates 1,2,3, Sarah, and if you think it is (I’ve no idea whether you’re from the Yes campaign or not), you need to find out more about it. Like what happens if one candidate doesn’t win 50%. Which the YES leaflet doesn’t mention either.
Yes, this is mainly a piece about the outright LIES being told by the Yes campaign – like their claim that the BNP could not be elected under AV. And I’ll see them in court for that if I have my way. (Remember Phil Woolas?)
Wanting to get rid of the coalition – which a lib dem leadership contest may well do – is a pretty bloody valid reason for voting no to AV actually Sarah. It’s certainly more valid than what Colin Firth thinks.
There is actually very little to choose between the two systems in terms of projected outcome, (see the channel 4 link I posted) so why not vote for a side benefit? I am at least voting for an actual effect rather than just what slebs think.
If you are from Yes to AV by the way Sarah – let’s see if your marketing strategy works. I think you will find that insulting the intelligence of people you’re trying to persuade could come back and bit you on the bum. So to speak.
Oh and.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358914/Alternative-vote-Yes-campaign-activists-breaking-rules-cold-calling.html
Thousands of voters who have asked not to be contacted on the phone are being cold-called by campaigners hoping to change the voting system.
The Yes campaign for the alternative vote is ignoring the rules of the Telephone Preference Service, which is meant to protect people from cold calling, ‘because of the importance of the campaign’.
The No campaign believes its opponents may be using electoral roll data to which they are not entitled to get phone numbers.
bite not bit.
Ok Stephen, Looking at your election results. I’m going to assume for the sake of argument that all the other votes are split 50-50. (this probably wouldn’t be the case of course, I should think those who voted UKIP and christian would be more likely to vote for the tories second, lib dem to support tories, plaid cymru would be more likely to vote labour – but this a hypothetical).
So the Tories still win. The total votes cast are 15833 Tories, 9414 Labour, others 12,864 (if I’ve added up correctly). To win you need 19,056 (total votes cast were 38,111 – assuming everyone had a second choice). The Tories only an extra 3223 votes out of the others. – about 25% of the extra votes.
As the channel 4 projected figures show, there would have been a difference of about 20 seats at the last election. Not really massive and we would probably have still ended up with condems. And do we want more coalitions? I don’t.
My point about tactical voting is that if I was in a seat where the tories came second last time, and lib dem third, I’d feel obliged to vote Lib Dem second even though I would rather vote for bleeding Colin Firth. Just in case. At least under FPTP you vote for the candidate you want to win, even though that was a compromise as far as I was concerned last time. I voted Labour as the least worst alternative.
I have certainly head of Benjamin Zephaniah, and I’m about as much a Londoner as I am Arabic. In fact, BZ and I have a mutual close friend, and have consequently sat around in a cafe discussing poetry together on at least one occasion.
But it’s true that there are a zillion hypothetical reasons he appeared on some leaflets and not others.
Polly, your maths on Clwyd West may well be right, but that isn’t the point. The point is whether the winning candidate has a greater level of support in a constituency than the other candidates. Whilst imperfect, the AV system is a far better mechanism for measuring that than FPTP. It would be better again with a system called AV+, but let’s not overcomplicate things, it’ll be hard enough dragging Parliament forward into the early 20thC without trying for the 21st.
And quite apart from the electorate, it would be far better for MPs themselves to know they have the assurance of the support of their constituents as well.
No I agree with you Stephen, AV+ would make much more sense. AV is neither fish nor fowl or good red herring – it’s a sop thrown to the libdems to keep them on side. Whatever Benjamin Zephaniah says. But it’s nice to hear I’m not the only non Londoner who’s heard of him!
I have to say a future of the fib dems holding the balance of power is about as appealing as a boot stamping on a human face forever.
Just to confirm I have also heard of Benjamin Zephaniah, and I would be able to recognise him
on a campaign leaflet, and I live in Norfolk.
The no to av ads are disgustingly misleading. the ones with the sick baby and the soldier, and their tv ad is just rubbish!! I think sunny hundal complained and the asa said they couldn’t do anything about it. So I guess both sides are guilty of slightly underhand tactics.
I don’t have TV Sianushka, so I haven’t seen them. I don’t think either side is covering themselves in glory in this debate, it’s just that Yes to Fairer votes is the only side I’ve had direct contact from.
Here you go Polly
No to AV:
Yes to AV:
Here’s a link to the guardian article about the baby ad
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/25/no-to-alternative-vote-baby-ad
It was a press/billboard ad and basically says that if you vote for AV, then the money it might cost to reform the system won’t be spent on maternity unites, so babies will die.
pretty grim stuff! as obviously there is no evidence to suggest any of its claims are remotely true.
Polly – Why be so personal? I’m actually from Manchester and have lived between there and Leeds for 25 of my 28 years so I’m pretty familiar with parts of the country that are north of Watford gap. I’m not sure what gives you the right to make that assumption about me?
I said Benjamin Zephaniah wasn’t AS WELL KNOWN AS Tony Robinson out of London, not that nobody outside of London had heard of him. So it’s nice to hear from everyone who has heard of him outside of London (especially since I can include myself in that category) but I’m not sure what your point is? I was merely giving a possible explanation for why he was taken out of the literature rather than automatically accepting the hysterical assumption that it was racism. Tony Robinson is more famous for playing Blackadder (a very well known and popular British comedy in the 80s – sorry if you find this patronising but you really don’t seem to know who he is and Blackadder was kind of a big deal…) He has probably reached a wider audience than Benjamin Zephaniah.
I’ve got nothing to do with the campaign. I’d prefer it if you could argue the points rather than launch ad hominem attacks.
We live in a celebrity culture. That’s not my fault. I’m just pointing it out.
As for your outrage over being peddle ‘LIES!!1!11’… Have you seen the No campaign’s strategy? I don’t think the ‘250 million reasons’ line is entirely honest… Why don’t you write a post on that?
I really don’t care how you vote. Vote for or against AV for all I care. Or don’t vote at all. I just think that your argument is incoherent and makes no sense. It seems to be based on little more than outrage and articles from the Daily Mail.
Sorry – ‘for playing Baldrick in Blackadder’…
Also, Polly –
“And just not having a second choice wouldn’t really be an option then would it?”
“So essentially this is saying that AV will force us into tactical voting. ”
This suggests that you are not clear at all on the difference between FPTP and AV at all. Firstly, there is no obligation to vote for a second preference. You just can if you want. Secondly, FPTP encourages tactical voting because of wasted votes. AV reduces or eliminates this.
So if you live in a Lab/ Tory marginal like I used to, under FPTP a vote for any another party would be wasted. I might prefer to vote Monster Raving Loony, but know that this would be a wasted vote and have no effect as the MRLs do not stand a chance in my constituency. Therefore I used to be forced to vote Labour tactically as really the contest was between them and the Tories.
Under AV, I could vote MRL as preference 1 and Labour as preference 2. This means I do not need to vote tactically according to who I don’t want to win. But I do not HAVE to express any preferences. I could just vote MRL if I wanted, just like under FPTP.
@ Sarah
Just so you know – if you’re trying to engage with feminists, framing an argument as ‘hysterical’ is on a par with Godwin’s law. What on earth made you think that using sexist slurs would win anyone round?
@ Spicy
I am a feminist.
I don’t consider ‘hysterical’ to be a necessarily sexist slur. It can be sexist, but I don’t think it has to be. I did actually consider using something else, as I thought someone would try and de-rail because of it, but couldn’t think of anything else at that moment. Anyway, it’s irrelevant. Pick another word you like and the point will still remain.
I didn’t make any assumptions about you Sarah, I said you were patronising – I’ll leave everyone to be the judge of that themselves – and London centric because you said nobody outside London had heard of Benjamin Zephaniah. You can live in Manchester and still be London centric.
No I haven’t seen the no campaign’s strategy, they haven’t written to me personally. But I said in the piece it didn’t look much better. And as I pointed out to Sianushka, I don’t have TV.
I haven’t quoted the Daily Mail at all in the main piece as you’ll see if you click on the links, they’re from the telegraph, the Voice, the guardian, the daily record and channel 4. And I’ve also quoted Andrew Rawnsley from the Observer (as well as the Mail) in the comments. So throwing ‘daily mail reader’ at me is as pointless as throwing ‘hysterical’ at me (what spicy said on that one). And leaves you in a poor position to be talking about ad hominem attacks.
I’ve just explained the difference between FPTP and AV several times, yet you say I’m not clear on the difference. When it’s you who said it was as simple as choosing 1, 2, and 3. And as for asking if you’re from ‘yes to fairer votes’ – well I don’t think you’re a regular commenter on this blog, (apologies if I’ve got that wrong) so it’s reasonable enough to ask why you suddenly turned up – “astroturfing” is a growning industry.
Also your argument about tactical voting doesn’t stack up. My point is that under AV, you have a second vote, which you are more or less obliged to use tactically if you don’t have a second choice. Under FPTP you may indeed choose to vote tactically, but you’re not pushed into doing it in the same way.
My piece is somewhat facetious in places, it’s my blogging style, as you’ll see if you check out my other pieces on here. But yes I am angry that in a referendum to change our entire voting system outright lies are being told byt those campaigning. I think that’s a perfectly fair stance, but you prefer to characterise it as ‘outrage’.
And yes I have heard of Blackadder Sarah. But since you seem so convinced that folks will only respond to a celebrity endorsement, why not try to find some other non white celebrities who support AV? There must BE some. As the Voice piece points out, operation black vote and the Muslim council of britain are also supporting the ‘yes’ campaign. Why not mention that in the literature?
The TV ads are dreadful. I caught a bit of one, some people looking confused in a classroom, (no campaign) and another with a woman speaking to a duck with a megaphone (yes campaign). Neither conveyed any useful information at all. This is the real problem with most political campaigns, whether leaflets, TV whatever – appeal to reason is not what they are after.
If you would re-read my post, I think you will definitely see that I did not say that NOBODY outside of London had heard of BZ, so I don’t understand why you keep repeating that. What I said is written right there so I can’t be lying about it. You then quite patronisingly accused me of being someone who doesn’t think that anything exists north of Watford and considers those outside of London to be the ‘great unwashed’… By your logic, if I said that people outside of Salford were less likely to know who LS Lowry was than people from Salford, I’d be Salford-centric.
This was a personal attack, even though you know nothing about me because if you did you would have known that I am from the north west of England. I don’t live in Manchester anymore btw. I’d prefer it if you could refrain from trying to make any comment about me, where I live or where I come from because you don’t know anything about me or my life. And it’s irrelevant anyway.
I’m not throwing ‘hysterical’ at YOU. I’m throwing it at the accusation that the Yes campaign strategy is racist. This idea doesn’t belong to you. It originated from the ‘No’ campaign, which a cursory glance at the newspaper articles reporting it would tell you. In any case, this is an argument over semantics, and not about the actual point in hand.
You are not obliged to use your second preference. I don’t understand why you keep saying that you are.
You say that you don’t have TV so are not aware of the No campaign. I presume that you do have the internet though. If you genuinely didn’t know, a quick google of Tony Robinson would tell you who he was, so why you keep characterizing him as some unknown of ‘Time Team’ when he is actually a very well known actor and high profile Labour supporter is disingenous. A quick google of ‘No to AV’ on youtube would show you several of their videos. They also have several adverts on bus stops and in the national press. Baroness Warsi has recently come under fire for alleging that AV would allow the BNP more influence. This was national news.
Basically, you got some literature from the Yes campaign, and also became aware of the No campaigns story about racism somewhere and decided to write an outraged post about how terrible the campaign was, and that you were going to vote based primarily on the fact that you didn’t like the Yes campaign and you didn’t like Nick Clegg. You didn’t research Tony Robinson or the No campaign’s strategy, or the criticisms that have been made of the No campaign or even how AV works in any great detail and how it compares with FPTP with regards to tactical voting and compulsory second preferences, yet still felt sufficiently well informed to write a blog post about it. When I queried some of your points you called me a patronising London-centric snob, a Yes campaigner and are now trying to characterize me as anti-feminist, even though feminism has pretty much nothing to do with it. Your focus in these replies has been on undermining my credibility (patronising, London-centric, working for the Yes campaign) and very little to do with the actual voting system, except to insist that you are forced into using a second preference when that is simply not true.
For the record, I do not work for the Yes campaign. Although it would be irrelevant if I was, seen as we should be discussing the voting system and surrounding issues, not me as a person.
“And yes I have heard of Blackadder Sarah. But since you seem so convinced that folks will only respond to a celebrity endorsement, why not try to find some other non white celebrities who support AV? There must BE some. As the Voice piece points out, operation black vote and the Muslim council of britain are also supporting the ‘yes’ campaign. Why not mention that in the literature?”
So you were being purposefully disingenous with regards to Tony Robinson.
Alistair Campbell knows a lot more about campaigning than either you or I, and has this to say on celebrity endorsement. As I keep saying, celebrity culture is not my fault and I would rather it didn’t exist, so please stop having a go at me about it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/14/bipolar-disorder-film-stars-alastair-campbell
I genuinely don’t know why the Yes campaign hasn’t used the organisations you mentioned. As I keep trying to tell you I don’t work for them. Maybe that’s their failing. But there’s more to this referendum than picking apart the Yes campaign strategy, which is all you seem to care about doing.
No Sarah, I got some literature from the Yes campaign which was untrue and that makes me angry. And as I’ve already said, my local council said their legal team are examining the leaflet to see if it breaches election law. I’m sure the no campaign are lying as well (I alluded to it in the piece) but they didn’t send me a personally addressed bunch of lies.
And I am not being “purposefully disingenuous’ with regard to Tony Robinson. He is currently on Time Team, no matter what he was on in the past. I never said I’d never heard of him, I said he was on Time Team (I know quite a few archaeologists and they don’t like him either).
You said ‘Benjamin Zephaniah is not as well known outside of London as Tony Robinson’. What is your evidence for that? And if it is that Tony Robinson is on the telly all the time, then why use Zephaniah INSIDE London? Presumably people in London have TV. Of course there’s a much bigger black population inside London as well.
Pandering to racism as a tactic isn’t unknown (see Cath’s latest post) and Yes to Fairer votes have hardly shown themselves to be fearless guardians of the truth.
And if you had bothered to ACTUALLY READ my piece Sarah you would see that I allude directly to Baroness Warsi
I still haven’t heard directly from ‘No to AV‘, though Baroness Warsi, in the no camp, claimed that AV would give power to fascists. Which isn’t really strictly true either.
It’s there, take a look.
I didn’t call you a snob at all, I said you were patronising and london centric. And I didn’t ‘try to characterize you as anti feminist’ spicy (who isn’t me) said the word hysterical was sexist and I agreed. It is.
And I asked if you were working for yes to fairer votes because, as I said, you don’t seem to be a regular commenter on this blog. Which as Cath said a couple of pieces down is largely about ‘feminism or politics’. Hence spicy referring to feminists.
And since when was I ‘having a go at’ you about celebrity culture? I’m arguing with your assertion that celebrity endorsement an effective way of arguing for a change in the electoral system. If you don’t want me to respond, don’t make the argument.
Basically, Polly, I’m going to take the liberty of assuming that you are on the progressive left. My apologies if this is wrong.
FPTP was developed when our political system was dominated by two main parties and in that context made sense. Our political landscape has shifted entirely since then. There are many more smaller parties, who are disproportionately disadvantaged by FPTP. They don’t really stand a chance. This is a problem that has particularly affected the progressive left as it is much more fragmented than the right. It means that left wing voters who agree on core issues will be split against the right wing opponents, resulting in an overall win for the right wing party even though the majority of voters may vote left wing, they just happen to disagree on which particular left wing party they vote for. Under FPTP, voters are forced to vote tactically for the party they believe is most likely to defeat the party they really don’t want. Hence the development of various vote swap websites, and other websites explaining how best to beat the Tories in your area. All of this is self-perpetuating under FPTP. People vote tactically on the basis of other people’s votes that are also tactical so nobody knows what would happen if they actually voted for whom they wanted so everyone just has to keep on voting tactically.
AV isn’t a perfect system. But what it definitely does do is eliminate the need to vote for the party that is most likely to beat the party you don’t want. It means that Labour can’t take left-wing votes for granted as easily as they have done in the past. It means that I can vote for the parties I really want to win rather than having to vote Labour to keep the Tories out. It means that candidates in safe seats need to win the support of 50% of their constituents and that parties can’t only concentrate on winning the votes of marginal seat voters, and ignore the wishes of all other votes (This is arguably one of reasons that Labour felt it had to move centre-right in order to win the 1997 election). It retains the benefits of FPTP but gives people the chance to express preferences if they want. It is not obligatory to put anything other than a first preference down.
The No campaign’s strategy is not to argue for FPTP on its own merits, as there are few particularly good arguments for it, especially nowadays when the traditional two-party system is disappearing and coalition governments and hung parliaments are going to be increasingly likely as voting patterns change. Instead they have concentrated on propaganda: 250 million reasons and the BZ racism row being two cases in point. Maybe I’m being too cynical here, but I see the racism ‘row’ as a purposeful strategy to divide the left wing, which is why your acceptance of it is so frustrating for me.
Whether the Yes campaign strategy is a good one or not is irrelevant to me. However, if your comments are anything to go off, the No campaign’s strategy is definitely working. They purposefully have planted the BZ story, they have purposefully tried to make this about Nick Clegg when it is about more than that, they have created a campaign based on fear and scaremongering (BNP and 250 million reasons). You seem to be taken by it. Maybe I’ve misunderstood your reasoning but this is how it comes across.
This is your only opportunity to have any say on the voting system that has disadvantaged the progressive left for years. If you aren’t on the progressive left, then vote however you wish. If you are, then I would encourage you to not let yourself be manipulated to vote against your beliefs and interests.
Basically, you got some literature from the Yes campaign, and also became aware of the No campaigns story about racism somewhere and decided to write an outraged post about how terrible the campaign was, and that you were going to vote based primarily on the fact that you didn’t like the Yes campaign and you didn’t like Nick Clegg.
Psychic are you Sarah? Actually what I said was this.
I still haven’t heard directly from ‘No to AV‘, though Baroness Warsi, in the no camp, claimed that AV would give power to fascists. Which isn’t really strictly true either.
Oh noes, I’m still confused, who can I turn to for the truth?
Channel 4 to the rescue – ‘Exclusive Poll: What difference would AV make?‘
Well AV would make a slight difference then. But we would probably have still ended up with a condem government.
Actually I’m voting no (though maybe I should be allowed to vote yes as second choice? Or don’t know?). I’m voting no for two reasons. The first is that I struggle to find one party I want to vote for most of the time, let alone three. And AV seems a crap system that will have a marginal difference. That just might include letting in more extremists, and can still produce anomalous results.
But the second is that a no vote is the only way we are going to get rid of Nick Clegg – ‘Nick Clegg orders rebrand amid rumours of leadership challenge‘
Now if you click on the links (which you’re always advised to do with my pieces because they’re part of the piece) I did quite refer to the No campaign being misleading and to Baroness Warsi. And I said that my reason for voting no was that av was a “crap system that will have a marginal difference’ (Nick Clegg called it a ‘miserable little compromise’ before he started to like it).
And secondly I pointed out that (click on the link) there is a body of opinion that a ‘no’ vote could well lead to a libdem leadership challenge and maybe even a general election. Which is a considerable consideration if you want shot of the ConDems as much as I do.
And the racism story was all over the press. But FYI, I read it first in the g
Guardian.
dunno what happened to my typing there.
More on BZ, including who the source was, and what BZ actually thinks:
http://moronwatch.blogspot.com/2011/04/benjamin-zephaniah-and-no2av-lies.html
It means that candidates in safe seats need to win the support of 50% of their constituents and that parties can’t only concentrate on winning the votes of marginal seat voters, and ignore the wishes of all other votes (This is arguably one of reasons that Labour felt it had to move centre-right in order to win the 1997 election).
This makes no sense at all. Under AV, voters for extremist parties could quite easily decide a result on second preferences. So there will be more pandering to extremists. If you know you’ve got to be the second choice of those who choose UKIP and BNP first what’s to stop you resorting to racism a la Phil Woolas?
And if you want to be the second choice of lib dem voters who might otherwise swing to the tories, then the ‘progressive left’ will also have to adopt more centrist policies.
And you only vote tactically if you live in a constituency where your preferred party comes third under FPTP. As it happens I live in a seat where my preferred party won (Hooray!). But they wouldn’t under AV because they didn’t have 50%. And BNP and UKIP got a fair amount of votes between them. Do I want them swinging the next result? Not really.
And of course the Fail reported the Zephaniah story. It doesn’t mean they’re not trying to pander to racism though. Not the same as being racist, please note.
AV isn’t a perfect system. But what it definitely does do is eliminate the need to vote for the party that is most likely to beat the party you don’t want.
No it doesn’t, since I will still have to vote for them as second choice. And possibly end up with them, even though I don’t want them.
You don’t know how your party would have done under AV because you don’t know how people would have voted without the constraints of FPTP. You also don’t know how voter turnout would have been affected. On top of this, you don’t know which parties would have been able to afford to field candidates and how this would have affected the result eg. the Green party cannot contest many seats because it risks losing its deposit if it runs in a seat where an insufficient number of people who support them are able to vote for them because under FPTP they have to vote Labour to keep the Tories out.
I don’t buy the BNP argument. There’s no good reason why BNP voters should be treated differently to other voters. I believe that democracy is for everyone, not only those whose policies you agree with. Also, in many areas BNP votes are not a reflection of truly racist sentiments but are a protest vote by disillusioned supporters who feel abandoned by the Labour party.
Gracious what a long thread! Right, we now know that if we want anyone to run campaigns, they AIN’T going to be found working on this issue now, except as a guide on How Not to Do It; that Benjamin Zephaniah’s fame stretches north of Watford; that Nick Clegg is somewhat less than Polly’s No 1 pin up; and loads of other stuff. It’s almost like being at Uni!
Now it would be sad, I think, if we were to pass up this once in a lifetime opportunity for modest but actual voting reform for the sake of getting at Nick Clegg. Frankly, I don’t think even he thinks he’s worth it.
I still consider myself left of centre, which is why I balk at voting Labour again, but I do still very much think that the left in Britain has a far greater tendency to split than the right, and that the overall tendency of AV will be to consolidate the left, which must be a good thing.
I don’t consider ‘hysterical’ to be a necessarily sexist slur.
You are Humpty Dumpty and I claim my prize!
No that’s not the only reason I’m agin it Stephen, I just don’t think it’s a good idea (for reasons already elucidated and am thoroughly bored of repeating). Getting cleggy (and possibly the coalition) is just a brucie bonus – sarah needs to understand I like to think I’m being funny when I write these things, even if no one else agrees!
And let’s not even get into the Humpty Dumpty thing again – look how that turned out.
Ok I have now received my ‘no to AV’ leaflet. Which contains an actual description of how the system works (unlike the yes to AV one). And it does contain the £250 million figure, but that is broken down into cost of the referendum (which ok is already spent) cost of new counting systems and cost of explaining the new system. And it does say why I should vote no without reference to any celebrities whatsoever. It also says that AV would give the Lib Dems more seats (which the channel 4 survey concurs with). And yes it mentions Nick Clegg. But on the whole it is a) a lot more truthful and b) a lot more informative than the ‘yes’ leaflet.
I’m late to this discussion, and have been disgusted by utterly inane posters (from both sides) such as ‘Do you want the least popular voting system in the world?’
Here is some wonderful mathematical analysis by Tim Gowers (Fields Medallist) which is written in a very accessible way (correct me if I am wrong, since I am also a mathematician):
http://gowers.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/is-av-better-than-fptp/
Needless to say, I am pro AV. The arguments concerning pandering to extremists don’t hold any water, particularly the argument that:
“4. AV is unfair because the least popular party gets its second-choice votes counted first.”
The other spurious argument: “3. Under AV, some people get more votes than others” is also soundly refuted in the blogpost I linked to in my previous comment.
As for Nick Clegg, I quote:
“THIS REFERENDUM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NICK CLEGG!
If you are planning to vote no to spite Nick Clegg, you should bear in mind the following points.
(i) The chance to change the voting system comes around very rarely because under FPTP the parties in power tend to have no interest in changing it, and hung parliaments, which give the Lib Dems a chance to negotiate, come around about once a generation.
(ii) You may hate the Liberal Democrats now, but think back to when you hated other parties. If you vote no to AV, then today’s Liberal Democrats will be very disappointed. But so will the Liberal Democrats of fifteen years time, who will be a completely different bunch of people, chastened by the experience of this coalition and certain to make keeping their pre-election promises their absolute top priority. Or perhaps they will have been annihilated completely and a different party, such as the Greens, will occupy the ground that they have traditionally occupied.
DON’T TAKE A LONG-TERM DECISION FOR SHORT-TERM REASONS!
(iii) Why do you hate Nick Clegg so much? Presumably because you hate the Conservatives, and Nick Clegg has allowed the Conservatives to govern with a minority. So it’s really the Conservatives you don’t want. And who has most to gain from retaining FPTP? The Conservatives.
Let me summarize:
NICK CLEGG IS TOAST ALREADY. VOTE YES TO SPITE DAVID CAMERON AND GEORGE OSBORNE!”
For a less mathematical but academically rigorous analysis of AV vs FPTP see:
Click to access TheAlternativeVoteBriefingPaper.pdf
I don’t agree. I would never vote tactically under FPTP because I only get one vote. Under AV I would feel obliged to vote tactically. (even though I would never want to vote for either of the ConDems)
The problem with that analysis is that it assumes everyone acts rationally and has done the maths before they vote. People don’t.
Rationally is probably the wrong word there, but can’t think of a better one.
Why do I hate Nick Clegg so much? He’s the world’s biggest liar, and has reneged on every single one of his manifesto promises. But the only way of getting rid of the coalition is for the Lib Dems to stop playing and force an election. And that is MUCH more likely if the AV vote is lost.
AV won’t make much difference either way to the Tory’s fortunes – see the Channel 4 predictions above. You can’t apply maths to a subject like this, because voter behaviour can be swayed by a lot of factors.
Quoting Polly:
“The problem with that analysis is that it assumes everyone acts rationally and has done the maths before they vote. People don’t.”
This assumption (beloved of economists everywhere until recently) is never made in Tim Gowers’ post, the analysis merely compares the two systems. No ‘rationality’ or intelligence is accorded to the voter whatsoever. Where did you see this? I admit I have not fully read Alan Renwick’s article.
I’m talking about the assumption that under FPTP people vote tactically. There’s no evidence of that as far as I can see.
Well some people (sure, not even a majority, depending on the constituency) do vote tactically on occasion under FPTP. It is of course hard, probably impossible to estimate exactly how many do.
Under AV the scope for tactical voting is extremely limited (as was argued at length in the blog post). As for not wanting to state a second or third preference, that is also permissible under AV. I guess I would need to better understand your reasons for never wanting to give a second or third preference.
(In a rush – might be back later).
Just a note to point out that, with all their many faults, at least we HAVE a yes and a no side at this referendum, and not just a yes side with all political parties on board as we had over joining the then Common Market. Which, in some small way, is progress.
Here is another interesting fact about voting systems (nothing to do with the voters’ preferences) courtesy of mathematicians – it is impossible to eliminate tactical voting altogether:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/22/formulas-for-fair-voting?INTCMP=SRCH
“Actually, the question is mathematical rather than political, and mathematicians have discovered several fundamental facts that severely limit what a voting system can achieve. Think of the voting system as an algorithm that takes all the personal preferences of voters (it is assumed that each voter has an order of preference of the candidates or parties) and produces the election result, which is a single preferred ordering of the candidates or parties that, in some sense, summarises the views of the whole electorate.
A theorem (proved by Allan Gibbard and Mark Satterthwaite) tells us about elections designed to find a single winner, as is the case when a constituency elects its MP. The theorem says that, if there are three or more candidates, any voting system which is not a dictatorship and which allows the possibility of any candidate winning, is susceptible to tactical voting (where voters have an incentive to vote in a way that doesn’t reflect their personal preferences).”
I like the last paragraph of that article (which is neutral about AV):
“Why do we never hear mention of the consequences of Arrow’s theorem and the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem in the political discussion of voting systems? A great deal has been compromised to get the AV referendum. Mathematics won’t end the political arguments, but it would certainly prevent much wasting of time.”
It is unfortunate and frustrating* that we live in a world, where despite advances in mathematics, science and technology, all we hear in this debate is mindless celebrity endorsement of either voting systems. I am not saying everyone should look at the proofs of those theorems but just be made aware of the statements.
*Well, I can hardly say I am surprised though.
Yes! Or should I say No!
Oh and my reasons for not wanting to give a second or third preference (missed that one). Nick Clegg and David Cameron. And I would never vote green (I support nuclear power). So who’s my second preference exactly?
You support nuclear power??? Ooooh, now there’s a discussion for the future…..
I do, I think it’s an effective way of electricity generation.